Give Guns a Chance

They must be stopped. Dramatic, yes, but certainly of significant truth. I’m referring to the murderous gunmen who have recently terrorized college campuses in the United States, and also to those who may be considering similar action. Incidents at Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois serve as disturbing proof of  an increase in deadly campus shootings, and it is far from irrational to fear that other disturbed college students may be getting ideas.

Colleges, by nature, are open places—as they should be. However, this characteristic does leave students fairly susceptible to shootings. Another characteristic of college is that it introduces a new set of pressures to students, some of whom clearly cannot cope with them. The worst and most disturbed cases may turn to violence as a response, and there is little that can be done to stop this progression. Consequently, defense against these deadly attacks needs to be enacted in order to protect the college, not save the individual.

That being said, there are certainly options from which to choose from in order to go about securing college campuses. Columnist Dennis Prager identifies the three most discussed options: making college campuses closed environments, increasing the level of difficulty in obtaining a firearm, and enacting a program where designated individuals on campus are allowed to carry guns. Let’s go down the list.

In response to the recent deadly shooting at Northern Illinois University, the college president has pledged to enact the first possibility—to make the campus a closed, more thoroughly policed environment. Security personnel at NIU were on the scene within two minutes of the start of the shooting. It was all over, however, when they arrived. This certainly begs the question: could it have been stopped, even with increased security? Probably not. Increased security on campus would be effective only if the campus were made into an effective fortress with armed guards patrolling all areas at all times. Clearly this response is illogical and unreasonable. Substantially increasing security will serve little purpose, and will detract from the quality of campus life. Closing the campus will undoubtedly lower the quality of the college experience, as well. Turning a campus into a fortress (or an airport) is not the answer. We mustn’t destroy the traditional college campus in response to disturbed students with guns.

The second possibility is a popular one. Individuals and groups all across the country spout the need to make firearms more difficult to obtain, or even to ban them completely. Asinine. Imagine this scenario: a disturbed college student with murder on his mind finds out that, for one reason or another, he cannot legally obtain or carry a gun and says, “Oh, that’s too bad. I’m out of luck” and returns peacefully to his dorm. That is unlikely to happen, so we should toss second possibility out even more quickly than the first. Those who seek to take the lives of innocent college students have no regard for the law to begin with, and thus restrictions and bans will mean nothing. Guns exist, and those who wish to use them to take innocent lives will obtain them regardless.

Now we arrive at the third possibility, the only viable solution of the three. Specially training and arming designated faculty members and students holds promise as a deterrent. Potential killers, with the knowledge that there is a high chance that an armed and ready-to-fire individual already in the building they wish to terrorize, will be far less likely to try to carry out the attack. In addition, having these individuals present among the masses of the student body will greatly increase the ability to save lives if an attack is indeed initiated. This solution is practical because it does not try to change the nature of the college campus and it does not stem from naive beliefs. It stems from the same belief that is behind the Second Amendment, that guns in the hands of good people are beneficial and useful instruments.

As reluctant as we may be to open campuses to firearms, we cannot let the fear of guns themselves prevent us from protecting ourselves. Our policy cannot be driven by the belief that increased security budgets will somehow save lives, or that deranged people with murderous intentions will abide by gun laws. The result will be tragic. Guns, good intentions and responsible handling comprises a useful combination, and this must be trusted. Events of late show us that something must be done, and as disagreeable as it sounds, give guns a chance on college campuses.

Comments

[luke]

Option #1. I agree, "fortress" style campus' are not the answer.
Option #2. Here your logic is deeply flawed. First off, you have ignored the empowering and enabling power of the object that is a gun. Ask any police officer or service person about the first day they walked around with their firearm, ask about the power, the control they felt. These qualities, power, control, are the very qualities that are sought by a "deranged" person. Now, if you give that deranged person a gun they will see the power and control over their world start to return. If you disable the ability to acquire the gun the angry and deeply miserable person will have to look for other outlets for their anger/lack of control. They will perhaps find a way to diffuse the flaring anger - an option that is not possible with a gun until AFTER they have killed (VTech and illinois killers both killed themselves after the shootings)
The actual solution then is this: provide student services that actually help students manage their emotional state. These are college students after all, kids.

lastly, your Option #3 - I am sorry, but if you cannot see the flaws in this then you have some work to do. I will point out the most important one however: who chooses? Who is the vigilante protectorate? are you the one to determine who the gun carrying safety students are?

[Bob]

As a former employee of Vanderbilt, I'd like to share a couple of things. I worked in the ITS department, which is located on the corner of Peabody in easy walking distance of one of the scarier projects in Nashville. It is also next to the new freshman student commons.

While I was working there, there was an email sent around about a rash of muggings. These were happening on the sidewalk just down from my building around the time that I was coming into work, and those that I was relieving were heading home. (The ITS building has folks in it 24 hours, 7 days a week) I would have considered getting a carry permit and carrying had it not been illegal to carry on school grounds.

As for the police presence, that doesn't work very well either. Vanderbilt does have a large police force, and all that I've met or known were good folks that worked very hard. That being said, my car was broken into while I was at work. Not only that, but there was an officer in his squad car in the same parking lot at the time it happened. If a criminal truly wants to commit a crime, they will.

Lastly, to address the question of who determines who can carry, that one is simple. The state already has a CCW permit program. Of course, most students wouldn't be able to carry due to being under 21, but older students and staff should be able to go through the process of obtaining a permit and carry if they wish.

[Nick]

Luke--
In an ideal world, the Option #2 that you so advocate could be an effective solution to school violence. Were it impossible for any civilian to obtain firearms, then our nation might be a safer place and the need for concealed carry on campuses would be less obvious. Unfortunately, however, this is not the world we live in. Weapons are easily attainable, both legally and not. It would be seemingly impossible to remove all illegal firearms from the streets. Furthermore, just as drugs and illegal aliens are so easily imported into our country, so firearms would be. I suspect that a truly deranged individual with murder on his/her mind would not give up their mission as easily as you seem to propose. Disabling the ability to acquire a weapon is near impossible, and thus it appears that your argument, though well intentioned, relies on unreasonable premises.

[Matthew Hurtt]

Awesome suggestion! I wish I had thought of it. Oh wait! I sponsored legislation within the MTSU Student Government to lobby the State to allow carry permit holders to carry on campus.

To no avail, though. I wonder if VSG is made up of the same type of students the MTSU SGA claims.

Wonderful idea. Keep fighting.

- Matthew Hurtt